Certain groups of people get special "politically correct" protections either by social norms or legal enforcement. At first glance, these groups appear merely as subject to social fads. Quite like a hoola-hoop, jelly shoes or friendship bracelets, certain groups go in and out of fashion.

Here is a short list of groups that you can bash with impunity:

White males

Christians

Here's a short list of protected groups:

homosexuals

blacks

"undocumented immigrants"

Although, in recent time it seems that blacks have fallen out favor in lieu of the homosexual. One can say a certain degree of things about black people (in contrast to a few years ago before the gay rights people got momentum) without it being considered "hate speech" but not to the degree that one can criticize homosexuals. Even the term, "homosexual" is becoming the big bad "N" word.

Immigrants are pretty untouchable too. Today it's considered a fact that they are the best thing to happen to this country since sliced bread or whatever. When, objectively speaking, that's actually just an opinion. But you can't ever counter the politically correct opinion, because then you are engaging in, "hate speech."

However, I can say the most awful things about Christians. I can claim that every last Catholic priest is a pedophile and nobody will so much as wince. I can go on a long diatribe and explain all the evils that white men have done, but never shall I break the sacred politically correct commandment of placing culpability for those things on the white female, nor shall it ever be known that other groups have committed similar evils.

It seems to me that this has created huge divisions in our country. It's white men vs black people, Christians vs homosexuals. I can only conclude that political correctness has not provided for a unitary socially cohesive group of Americans.

Should certain groups of people get special protections from criticism, if it only creates an artificial social divide?

Keep in mind that I am not endorsing any specific position here, just observing these socially constructed political correct norms.

@jcknapier711: I mostly agree. I think that "hate speech" is real and should be fought. I also think that every group (that doesn't hurt others with what they do) should have the right to be represented somehow but at the same time nobody should be "untouchable" or special. Then again, more often than not the most vocal people in those groups have the holier-then-thou attitude and will tell you (ad nauseam) that if you disagree with anything they say you're narrow-minded and are trying to take away their rights.

I agree that political correctness is so mundane and has gotten to the point of being a despotism of thought. The mere act of voicing a trivial criticism or an opinion that slightly diverges from the established one will render you a hateful bigot that must not be listened to or treated with any degree of consideration. I don't think that even the most liberal and supposedly free countries are actually free because you still need to carefully watch what you're saying. Religious despotism seems to be assuming the shape of secular despotism. No one will necessarily persecute you, in the most definite meaning of the word persecute, for saying something against the status quo, but they will effectively do so by marginalizing you and coercing you to at least voice opinions on sensitive topics that coincide with the public opinion on those topics or else you run the risk of being socially alienated and fringed. In my humble opinion, political correctness is only one expression of the intellectual decay and the despotism of majority rule the world is currently experiencing.

However, regarding the general acceptance or apathy towards criticizing groups like white people or Christians, I think its a twofold phenomenon. First it has to do with the antagonistic nature of the legacy of these two groups, the colonial white man and the reign of the Catholic church in Europe and what it brought to it. Second it has to do with the simple notable demographic volume of these two groups. People expect that its unlikely that white people or Christians can be subject to persecution and/or discrimination whether currently or in the foreseeable future simply because they're still able to maintain a substantial majority.

That is a great meme, but I would cut the last Q&A. It might give the impression that to end something you should just stop talking about it. Would that have worked in 1950? Or 1859? Maybe if we stop talking about same sex marriage it will all go away and same sex couples will be able to magically start marrying each other in all 50 states. The question is if the US is so far advance in their race relationships that giving platform to race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson which have an invested interest in creating race divisions in this country is counter productive.

Are we pass that? There isn't a definitive answer, it is more of a continuing process in search of the "more perfect Union" that Obama talked about in 2008. Perhaps as a symbolic gesture, at the end of his term Obama should ask the country to move pass this Black History Month thing, since in that regard Freeman is absolutely right, Black history is American history.

@Master_Live: white women are the biggest benefactors of affirmative action. And let's set the record straight.... AA does not magically put under qualified people in positions. It makes sure minorities are not over looked when it comes to the application process or the hiring process. Qualifications do matter my friend.

False. Groups of people are protected because needless social division existed in the first place. This topic is idiotic and a vent for the OT racists to come out and complain about how hard it is to be a white person this day and age.